2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-28-2009 

# W re nch T ransp S e r v . B ra d ley P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4817

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " W r e nch T r an sp S e r v

. B r a dley " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 928. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/928T he H onor abl e J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef Judge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof I nt ernat i onal 1 T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 07- 4817

_____________ W R E N C H T R A N S P O R T A T IO N S Y S T E M S , IN C .;

J A M E S M A L O N E , J R ., A p p e llan ts

v. F RA NK B RA DL E Y; J OHN F . KE NNE DY; M AR I ANNE L E WI CK I ; L E AH ANN M CMAHON

_______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( N o. 95- cv- 06203) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os e L. L i nar es Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember20, 2008 B efor e: B A R R Y and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges and R E ST A N I , J udge 1 ( Fi l ed: J ul y28, 2009) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. Pl ai nt i ffs W r ench Tr ans por t at i on Sy s t ems, I nc. and i t s s ol e s t ockhol der , J ames M al one, J r . ( “M al one”) appea l the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof d e f e n d a n ts J o h n K e n n e d ya n d L e a h A n n M c M a h o n (“ K e n n e d y ” a n d “ M c M a h o n ” ). B e c a u se w e f

in d th a t M a lo n e is n o t en tit led to su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss p ro tec tio n f o r h is p u rp o rte d in ter e st in e ith e r h is rig h t to “ e n g a g e in b u sin e ss ” o r h is p e rso n a l p ro p e rty o w n e rsh ip o f

h is tru c k s, w e w ill a f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f K e n n e d ya n d M c M a h o n . I. B ec au se w e w ri te on lyfo r th e p arti es, w e w il l on lyad d ress the fa cts th at are r el evantt o ouranal y s i s . T hi s cas e ar i s es outof the ci vi l for fei tur e of c ert ai n M al one trucks s ei zed i n connec t i on w i th a N ew J er s eys t at e cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on aboutthe i l l egal tr ans por tof w as t e oi l . M al one cl ai m s thatthe def endant s vi ol at ed hi s s ubs t ant i ve du e process r i gh t s w hen theyal l eged l yrefused t o return t he M al on e veh i cl es unles s M al one s i gned a r el eas e and pr ovi ded t es t i m onyforthem i n connec t i on w i th the cr i m i nal in v e s tig a tio n . T o p u rsue this clai m , M alon e su ed F ran k B rad ley(a N ew Jerse ystat e inv esti g ator) ( “ B r a d l e y” ) , M a r i a n n e L e w i c k i ( a N e w J e r s e y s t a t e i n v e s t i g a t o r ) ( “ L e w i c k i ” ) , K e n n e d y, an d M cM ah o n u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 . In 2 0 0 3 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted s u m m ary j udgm entt o defe ndantM ar i anne Lew i cki on the gr ounds of abs ol ut e i m m uni ty . See3

A p p e n d ix (A p p .) 1 4 -1 5 . M a lo n e d id n o t a p p e a l th a t d e c is io n . In W re n c h T ra n s p . S e rv ., I nc. v. B r adl ey , 136 F. A pp’ x 521 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “W r ench I ”) , w e found thatB r adl ey w as ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni tybeca us e M al one w as unabl e t o s how a ca us al co n n ec ti o n b etw ee n B rad ley ’s ac ti o n s an d the re turn o f th e M alon e truc k s. S ee W ren ch I, 136 F. A pp’ x at522. A tthatt i m e, w e dec l i ned t o deci de w hetherM al one had a p ro te c tib le s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s in te re s t. I d . I n W r ench Tr ans p. Sy s . , I nc. v. B r adl ey , 212 F. A pp’ x 92, 98- 100 ( 3d C i r . 2006) (“ W re n c h II” ), w e f

o u n d th a t K e n n e d ya n d M c M a h o n w e re n o t en tit led to a b so lu te i m m uni tyforthei ral l eged a ct i ons i n connec t i on w i th thei rpos t - s ei zur e conduc tr egar di ng M al one’ s pr operty , beca us e theyw er e ac t i ng i n an i nves t i gat ory , r atherthan a pr os ecut or i al , capa ci ty . W e al s o hel d thatther e w as no evi dence thatK ennedyor M cM ahon tr i ed t o coer ce f al s e t es t i m onyfr om M al one i n excha nge forthe trucks . I d. at 1 0 0 . T he ca s e then r eturned t o t he D i s tr i ctC our t , w her e K ennedyand M cM ahon ar gued both thatM al one had f

ai l ed t o s how thathi s s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed, a n d th a t, ev e n if

M a lo n e ’s r ig h ts h a d b e e n v io late d , K e n n e d ya n d M c M a h o n w e re still ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni ty . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof K e n n e d ya n d M c M a h o n . It fo u n d th a t, w ith re g a rd to K e n n e d y , M a lo n e h a d f a iled to es t abl i s h a ca us al connec t i on betw een K ennedy ’ s act i ons and hi s al l eged i nj ur i es , as he w as r equi r ed t o do, and thatK ennedyw as ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm ent . See W r ench4

T r ans p. v. B r adl ey , N o. 95- cv- 06203, 2007 W L 4233011 at*4, *9 ( D . N . J . N ov. 29, 2007) ( “W r ench I I I ”) . I n addi t i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed thateven i f M al one had e s t abl i s hed a c a u sa l co n n e c tio n b e tw e e n K e n n e d y ’s a c tio n s a n d h is a lleg e d in ju rie s, h is f

a ilu re to e sta b lish th a t h e h a d a p ro p e rtyin ter e st th a t is p ro tec ted b ysu b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss w o u ld resu ltin the fa il u re o f h is cl aim . A lth o u g h the D istri ct C o u rth eld th at M cM ah o n ’s act i ons m etthe ca us al connec t i on s t andar d, i tneverthel es s found thatM cM ahon w as ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm entbeca us e M al one fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h a s ubs t ant i ve due p ro c e s s v io la tio n , a s h o w in g w h ic h is re q u ir e d f o r a 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 c la im . Id . a t * 8 . II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1331 and 1343. W e have juri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . T h is C o u rtrev iew s the g ran t of su m m ary jud g m en t de n o v o . G o n za lez v . A M R , 5 4 9 F . 3 d 2 1 9 , 2 2 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). “S u m m ary j udgm enti s appr opr i at e onl yw her e ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tand the m ovi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” I d. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . See Fed. R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). W h e n a n a ly z in g a su m m a ryju d g m e n t cla im , “w e m u st v iew th e f a c ts in the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he non- m ovi ng party , and dr aw al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s ther efr om i n t hatparty ’ s favor . ” N ew J er s eyT r ans i tC orp. v. H ar s co C orp. , 497 F. 3d 3 2 3 , 3 2 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). III . Sect i on 1983 pr ovi des that“[e ] veryper s on w ho, undercol orof anys t atut e,5

or di nance , r egul at i on, cus t om , orus age, of anySt at e . . . s ubj ect s , orcaus es t o be s ubj ect ed, anyci t i zen of the U ni t ed St at es orotherper s on w i thi n the j ur i s di ct i on ther eof t o the depr i vat i on of anyr i ght s , pr i vi l eges , ori m m uni t i es s ecur ed bythe C ons t i tut i on and l aw s , s hal l be l i abl e t o t he partyi nj ur ed i n an ac t i on atl aw , s ui ti n equi ty , orotherpr oper p ro c e e d in g f

o r r e d re s s . . . .” I ti s a r emedi al s t atut e; i tdoes notcr eat e r i ght s . K nei pp v. T edder , 95 F. 3d 1199, 1204 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . T o s ucce ed on a § 1983 c l ai m , “a pl ai nt i ff m us ts how thatthe def

endant s , act i ng undercol orof l aw , vi ol at ed the pl ai nt i ff’ s fede r al co n sti tuti o n al or statutoryri g h ts, an d there b yca u sed the c o m p lai n ed o f in jury . ” E lm o re v. C l eary , 399 F. 3d 279, 281 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T hus , w e fi r s tl ook t o s ee w hetherM al one w as depr i ved of a cons t i tut i onal r i ght . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thathe w as not . W e agr ee. M al one cont ends thatK ennedyand M cM ahon vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s underthe su b stan ti v e d u e p roc ess c laus e o f th e F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t w h en theyfa il ed to return the M al one trucks . H e ar gues that“ow ner s hi p of trucks , w hi ch ar e us ed t o s uppor t[a] b u s in e s s , is a p ro p e rt yin te re s t p ro te c te d b yth e C o n s titu tio n . . . .” A p p e lla n t B r. a t 2 7 -2 8 . H e a ls o c o n te n d s th a t h e h a s a f u n d a m e n ta l r ig h t to “ c o n d u c t b u s in e s s .” Id . a t 3 0 . T he Four t eenth A m endmentpr ovi des thatno s t at e s hal l “depr i ve anyper s on of lif e , lib e rt y , o r p ro p e rt y , w ith o u t d u e p ro c e s s o f la w . . . . ” U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d . X IV . S u b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss is a “ c o m p o n e n t o f th e [ F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t] th a t p ro tec ts i ndi vi dual l i bertyagai ns t‘ cert ai n governm entact i ons r egar dl es s of the fa i rnes s of the6

pr ocedur es us ed t o i m pl ementthem. ’ ” C ol l i ns v. C i tyof H arkerH ei ght s , 503 U . S. 115, 1 2 5 (19 9 2 ) (qu o ti n g D an iel s v . W il li am s, 4 7 4 U . S . 3 2 7 , 3 3 1 (19 8 6 )). T h e S u p rem e C o u rt e x p lain e d in C o lli n s th a t “[ a ]s a g e n e ra l m a tter, th e C o u rt h a s a lw a y s b e e n re lu c tan t to e x p a n d th e c o n c e p t o f

su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss b e c a u se g u id e p o sts f o r re sp o n sib le deci s i onm aki ng i n t hi s . . . ar ea a r e s car ce a nd open- ended. ” I d. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . See al s o N i chol as v. Pa. St at e. U ni v. , 227 F. 3d 133, 140 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) (“ T h e h is to ry o f

s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s ‘c o u n s e ls c a u tio n a n d re s tr a in t.’ ” ). W hetherthe pr opertyr i ghtas s ert ed i s ent i t l ed t o s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s pr ot ect i on d e p e n d s o n w h e th e r i t is c o n s id e re d “ f u n d a m e n ta l.” N ic h o la s , 2 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 4 0 . Fundam ent al r i ght s ar e r i ght s thatar e “de epl yr oot ed i n the N at i on’ s hi s t oryand tr adi t i ons

. . . . [ a n d ] in ter e sts im p licit in th e c o n c e p t o f o rd e re d lib e rtylik e p e rso n a l ch o ice in m a tte rs o f

m a rr ia g e a n d f

a m ily.” Id . a t 1 4 3 (c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). W h i l e th i s C o u r th a s f

o u n d th a tth e r e c a n b e a f u n d a m e n t a l i n t e r e s ti n r e a l p r o p e r ty, in ter e sts lik e “ a lo w b id d e r’s e n tit lem e n t to sta te c o n tra c t” a s w e ll as a n e n tit lem e n t to publ i c t enur ed empl oym entar e notfundament al . I d. at142. I ndeed, M al one conc edes that this C o u rth as h eld th at em p loym en t i s n o t a pro tected p rop ertyinterest un d er a s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s a n a lysis . H ere, w e agree w i th the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s fi nd i ng that M al on e’s assert ed int eres t s — the righ t t o “e n g ag e in b u sine ss” a n d h is r igh t t o the o w n ersh ip o f th e truc k s — are m o re s i m i l art o t he type of i nt angi bl e empl oym entr i ght s thatthi s C our thas r ej ect ed as not7

pr ot ect ed bys ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s than the r eal pr opertyi nt er es t s w hi ch ca n be pr ot ect ed bys ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s . C f. L ei b v. H i l l s bor ough C ountyPub. T r ans p. C om m ’ n, 558 F. 3d 1301, 1306 n. 4 ( 11th C i r . 2009) ( not i ng thatw hi l e the pl ai nt i ff

“ a b a n d o n e d ” h is c laim th a t h e w a s d e p riv e d o f th e “ rig h t to e a rn a liv in g ” n e v e rth e les s it “w oul d have f

ai l ed i n anyeventgi ven . . . thatempl oym entr i ght s do ‘ notenj oy s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s pr ot ect i on . . . . ’ ”) ; H i l l v. B or ough of K ut zt ow n, 455 F. 3d 225, 234 n. 12 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “To t he ext ent[pl ai nt i ff’ s ] s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m w as b a se d n o t o n lyo n lo ss o f h is jo b , b u t als o o n re p u tatio n a l in ju ryth a t d e c re a se d h is ‘a b ili ty t o earn a l i vi ng, ’ i tal s o fai l s . ”) ; M edei r os v. V i ncent , 431 F. 3d 25, 32 ( 1s t C i r . 2005) (“Th e ri gh tt o ‘m ake a li ving’ i s not a ‘ fun dam ental ri gh t ’ . . . for subst anti ve d ue p rocess pu rposes. ”). In addit i on , w hil e w e hav e st at ed that“ow nershi p is a prope rtyi nter est w or thyof s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s pr ot ect i on, ” D eB l as i o v. Z oni ng B d. of A dj us t m ent , 53 F .3 d 5 9 2 , 6 0 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ), a b ro g a te d o n o th e r g ro u n d s b yU n ite d A rt is ts T h e a tr e C ir ., In c . v . T w p . o f

W a rrin g to n , 3 1 6 F .3 d 3 9 2 , 4 0 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ), in N ich o las , w e n o ted : “w e have s o farl i m i t ed non- l egi s l at i ve s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r evi ew t o cas es i nvol vi ng r eal pr opertyow ner s hi p. ” 227 F. 3d at141 ( emphasi s added) . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude th a t M a lo n e h a s f

a iled to e sta b lish th a t h is p e rso n a l p ro p e rtyin ter e st in h is tru c k s is “fun dam ental ” for pu rposes of ou r Fou rt eenth A m end m ent s ub st anti ve d ue p rocess analy si s. W e ther efor e fi nd thatM al one has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h thathe has a pr opertyr i ghtB eca us e w e fi nd thatM al one’ s cl ai m does notes t abl i s h the depr i vat i on of a 2 C ons t i tut i onal r i ght , w e nee d notdet erm i ne w hetherK ennedyand M cM ahon ar e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni ty . See Pear s on v. C al l ahan, 129 S. C t . 808, 815- 18 ( 2009) ( u p h o l d i n g th e two p r o n g s o f q u a l i f i e d i mm u n i tya n a l y s i s — th a ta p l a i n t i f f mu s ts h o w a “vi ol at i on of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght ” and thatthe r i ghtw as “cl ear l yes t abl i s hed”— but f in d in g th a t th e yd o n o t n e c e s s a ri ly h a v e to b e e x a m in e d in a p a rt ic u la r o rd e r) . 8 w hi ch i s pr ot ect ed bythe C ons t i tut i on. B eca us e M al one has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h any 2 s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ghther e, r egar dl es s of the anycaus al connec t i on betw een K ennedyand the r eturn of the trucks , the ar gum ent s thatM al one makes i n hi s br i ef r egar di ng pot ent i al genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac tw i th r egar d t o w hetherK ennedy ca u sed a d ep ri v ati o n o f h is r igh ts are rejec ted. A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err i n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof K ennedyand M cM ahon. W e br i efl ynot e thatM al one al s o ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed w hen i tfound thatM al one w as barr ed fr om chal l engi ng a pr ot ect i ve or derthathad bee n i s s ued bythe M ag istrate Ju d g e in th is case b ec au se M alon e h ad n o t fi led tim elyo b jecti o n s. T h is C o u rt has pr evi ous l ycons i der ed and r ej ect ed M al one’ s ar gum enton thi s i s s ue. W r ench I I , 212 F . A p p ’x a t 10 0 -01 . W e a re n o t i n cli n ed to d istu rb o u r prior d ec isi o n , an d w il l th ere fo re aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng. V. F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .